Madras High Court
The Home Secretary vs A.Vijayakumar on 13 June, 2022
W.A.No.1429 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.1429 of 2022
& C.M.P.No.9254 of 2022
1.The Home Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Government,
Home (Police-2) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
O/o the Director General of Police,
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai-600 004. .. Appellants
Vs
A.Vijayakumar .. Respondent
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 09.08.2021 made in W.P.No.24678 of 2019.
For Appellants : Ms.P.Raja Rajeswari,
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for
Mr.K.Prem Anand
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1429 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Made by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 09.08.2021
recorded on W.P.No.24687 of 2019. This appeal is by the State.
2. Learned Government Advocate for the appellants has
submitted that the direction by learned single Judge to promote the
writ petitioner with effect from the date his immediate juniors were
promoted is against the policy of the State on more than one count.
It is submitted that the writ petitioner was undergoing punishment
and therefore he could not have been promoted and further that the
writ petitioner is also facing criminal proceedings. It is further
submitted that under either of the circumstances such a direction
could not have been issued and therefore this appeal be entertained.
3.1 On the other hand, Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior advocate for
the writ petitioner has submitted that the case of the State even in
departmental enquiry against the writ petitioner was that there was
some dereliction of duty in managing the police force which resulted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1429 of 2022
in some mishap between two groups and therefore there is no
question of the writ petitioner facing criminal proceedings at the
hands of the State but that is not the subject matter of this appeal
and therefore that aspect is not argued further.
3.2 So far departmental enquiry is concerned, it is submitted
that for the alleged misconduct of the year 2012, punishment of
withholding of increment for two years with cumulative effect was
ordered on 12.07.2016, which in the subsequent appeal/ revision, has
been modified by the authorities of the State - initially as withholding
of two increments without cumulative effect and subsequently as
withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. Attention of
this Court is invited to the orders a copy of which is placed on
record.
3.3 It is submitted that the cut-off date for the consideration of
promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was
01.06.2018 and going by the policy of the State itself, as on that
date, the writ petitioner was neither undergoing punishment nor was
under any cloud. It is submitted that this was considered by learned
single Judge and direction was given to promote the writ petitioner. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1429 of 2022
is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under:
4.1 The charge against the writ petitioner was deriliction of
duty. The satisfaction recorded by the Director General of Police,
while modifying the punishment, is to the effect that “He has been
issued a charge memo for his failure to take sufficient strength of
police personnel and went to the spot without uniform to attend
dispute between two groups of people regarding sand smuggling”. It
is under these circumstances, the proceedings were initiated against
the petitioner.
4.2 The authorities have found, on evaluation of the material
that ends of justice would meet if the writ petitioner is imposed
punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative
effect. The said punishment will relate back to 12.07.2016 the date
on which the first order was passed by the disciplinary authority. We
find that as on 01.06.2018, the writ petitioner could not be said to be
in cloud and if otherwise, he is found to be meritorious and within
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1429 of 2022
zone, he could not have been denied promotion.
4.3 It is not in dispute that the persons junior to the writ
petitioner, while were promoted the writ petitioner was not promoted.
The direction by learned single Judge to promote the writ petitioner
with effect from the date of his juniors are given promotion, in the
facts of this case, according to us, can not be said to be erroneous in
any manner. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed.
4.4 So far the criminal proceedings are concerned, we find that
in the facts noted above, whether the State can take any stand
against the writ petitioner itself is an issue, however, no observations
are made in this regard since that issue is not before us.
5.In view of above, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U., J) (V.B.S., J)
13.06.2022
Index:No
mmi/3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1429 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1429 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
mmi
W.A.No.1429 of 2022
13.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
